1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Prop 8 Overturned - Supreme Court Validates District Court Ruling

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Dan82, Jun 26, 2013.

Thread Tools

Thread Tools

Page 4 of 6
  1. Martin

    Martin
    Board Member Admin Team Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Re: Prop 8: Supreme Court Ruling

    That's not accurate.

    They said that any ruling made on Prop 8 after the District Court's is invalid, therefore the proponents of prop 8 lacked standing to argue it at the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court. As a result, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the case and vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, thus leaving the District Court as the only ruling left. As that case struck Prop 8 down, it can no longer be enforced in California.
     
    #61 Martin, Jun 26, 2013
  2. Eric

    Eric
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    1
    Re: Prop 8: Supreme Court Ruling

    We won't actually get a ruling on Prop 8 because the defense had no legal standing to defend it.
     
    #62 Eric, Jun 26, 2013
  3. MerBear

    MerBear
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    east coast
    Re: Prop 8: Supreme Court Ruling

    then what about this

     
    #63 MerBear, Jun 26, 2013
  4. Tim

    Tim
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    California
    Essentially:

    Prop 8 was repealed.

    Cases happened, and when it did, the part of the state that was supposed to defend it refused to, so the supporters of the bill stepped in.

    SCOTUS ruled they had no legal right to do so, which invalidates every case they were a part of, so the original case, which resulted in the repeal of Prop 8, is the only one left.

    They clarified for those confused:

     
    #64 Tim, Jun 26, 2013
  5. Browncoat

    Browncoat
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Zefram Cochrane's hometown.
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Re: Prop 8: Supreme Court Ruling


    Apologies; I should have said "conclusion" instead of "ruling." I'm under the assumption that they have yet to release their conclusion on whether or not the Prop 8 case has any standing in the Supreme Court at all - and that they currently have only struck down the defense's legal standing to defend Prop 8.


    Or is the striking down of the defense's legal standing to defend Prop 8 officially conclusive as it relates to the standing of the Prop 8 case in the Supreme Court?
     
    #65 Browncoat, Jun 26, 2013
  6. Dan82

    Dan82
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    Kevin Russell:
    There will be much further discussion and analysis about how the decision in Perry affects other couples in California. For the time being, we will say this: the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal challenging a final order from the trial court. It would appear, then, that the order will go into effect. And it appears that this final order purports to prohibit the Attorney General and the Governor from enforcing Prop. 8.

    There could well be new challenges to the scope of that order. But for the time being, the order appears to be in effect and to prevent enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide.
     
    #66 Dan82, Jun 26, 2013
  7. Eric

    Eric
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    1
    Re: Prop 8: Supreme Court Ruling

    This was part of the dissent, not the ruling itself.
     
    #67 Eric, Jun 26, 2013
  8. Revan

    Revan
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,853
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    #68 Revan, Jun 26, 2013
  9. MerBear

    MerBear
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    east coast
    What people fail to understand though is if someone marries in one state, the other state MUST recognize the marriage. This is under the Good Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage case) explains this in detail.
     
    #69 MerBear, Jun 26, 2013
  10. Tim

    Tim
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    California
    From what I've read, the state doesn't have to recognize the marriage.

    The federal government still will, however.
     
    #70 Tim, Jun 26, 2013
  11. Martin

    Martin
    Board Member Admin Team Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Re: Prop 8: Supreme Court Ruling

    That's not saying that Prop 8 is upheld and SSM is a state issue. That appears to be from the dissent, which is arguing that the Supreme Court should not have invalidated the decision of California Supreme Court to grant standing to the proponents of Prop 8 that allowed them to appeal to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court.

    The majority opinion reversed that decision by the California Supreme Court, therefore invalidating all subsequent cases after the original ruling by Judge Walker in the District Court. That dissent is certainly advocating for the proponents to hve standing on the grounds that a state shouldn't be able to get a case thrown out simply because they disagree with it, but the majority voted against that.
     
    #71 Martin, Jun 26, 2013
  12. MerBear

    MerBear
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    east coast
    Well then that's GREAT but no offense, if they had left it up to the state, it would make political sense. Logically not so much
     
    #72 MerBear, Jun 26, 2013
  13. Tim

    Tim
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    California
    They DID leave it up to the state.

    The state repealed it.

    The people supporting Prop 8 decided to appeal the repeal. SCOTUS declared they had no legal right to do so.

    If they had made Prop 8 come back, then it would have given power to any private party who disagrees with the law.
     
    #73 Tim, Jun 26, 2013
  14. AlamoCity

    AlamoCity
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    They didn't invalidate Section 2 which allows states to not recognize other states' same-sex marriages. It seems that this is a Supremacy Clause/Full Faith Credit issue that will be taken up later on by other court rulings. But we now have ammunition for more fights because the Court thankfully ruled Section 3 unconstitutional on broader Equal Protection grounds, although it seems Kennedy only applied it to the Federal level. However, I believe it's not only a matter of time. The Court could have ruled it unconstitutional on the basis of federalism, but they took the time to use the more important Equal Protection basis as the rationale to invalidate Section 3 of DOMA.

    But with Prop 8's District ruling in place, at least Californians will be able to enjoy the federal benefits of marriage. Although at first, that ruling might be limited to the counties under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. But, I'm sure it will extend to the entire state soon after, if not immediately.

    Now we need a case where a married couple moves to another state and gets denied benefits at the state level and hopefully we can get another federal case to the Supreme Court.
     
    #74 AlamoCity, Jun 26, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2013
  15. MerBear

    MerBear
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    east coast
    Okay. sorry.
     
    #75 MerBear, Jun 26, 2013
  16. The username

    The username
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Well, I guess it was exactly as predicted.
    I am very happy that DOMA is down and that a state can be added to the SSM list. =)
    Now it's time to start my day.
     
    #76 The username, Jun 26, 2013
  17. Dan82

    Dan82
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    Supreme Court Ruling May Allow Gay Marriage in California
    Supreme Court Ruling May Allow Gay Marriage in California - Bloomberg





    ---------- Post added 26th Jun 2013 at 10:03 AM ----------

    Comment From Chris
    If the Federal Courts don't have jurisdiction over the Prop 8 case, then how can the Federal District Court decision finding Prop 8 unconstitutional stand? From Kevin: Good question. The reason is because the Supreme Court only found no standing by the Prop 8 opponents to appeal. It did not question the standing of the Prop. challengers to challenge the law. So the district court had jurisdiction; the court of appeals did not.
     
    #77 Dan82, Jun 26, 2013
  18. Tim

    Tim
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    California
    ^ They later corrected he meant PROPONENTS, not opponents. xD
     
    #78 Tim, Jun 26, 2013
  19. Dan82

    Dan82
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    Comment From Guest
    Kevin Russel says, "for the time being, the order appears to be in effect and to prevent the enforcement of Prop 8 statewide." But isn't there a stay in effect from the Ninth Circuit and from the District Court? The Supreme Court opinion doesn't appear to lift either of those stays, so don't they remain in effect and have to be formally lifted? From Kevin: That's a good point. We've been discussing among ourselves whether vacating the Ninth Circuits' decision automatically vacates the stay as well. Seems likely to me, but I admit, I don't know for sure. But even if the stay needs to be vacated, it surely will be.

    ---------- Post added 26th Jun 2013 at 10:23 AM ----------

    Supreme Court Rulings Boost Gay Marriage


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553500028771488.html




    ---------- Post added 26th Jun 2013 at 10:27 AM ----------

    Comment From Meghan
    haven't made it through the opinion yet, but was there discussion re whether the injunction issued by Walker applies to only the parties? and on a related note, whether he was within his scope if it applies to non parties? From Tejinder: We're trying to work this out. From our best reading, the injunction also applies to the Attorney General and Governor of California, in addition to two county clerks. The Ninth Circuit has stayed that injunction, but that stay will be vacated upon remand. So there will probably be a debate about whether Judge Walker's decision applies more broadly. If another county clerk refuses to issue a license to a same-sex couple, then you could see another case -- although it's not entirely clear how the standing issues would work. But I think the more likely result is that folks are just going to find sympathetic county clerks and seek licenses from them, avoiding the hassle of potentially having to litigate their marriages.



    Comment From Michael
    Regarding the stay of Judge Walker's order: Doesn't the Supreme Court give the losing side time to petition for rehearing? And after that, doesn't the Court have to issue a mandate before returning the case to the lower courts? Seems to me the stay is in effect until then. From Kevin: Good point. But the rules are different for cases coming from federal court. Under the Court's Rule 45, there is no mandate issued in cases coming from federal court unless the Court specially orders one be issued.

    ---------- Post added 26th Jun 2013 at 10:44 AM ----------

    Comment From David
    How can Walker's ruling stand without also making same-sex marriage legal in all states? Walker's ruling was broad invoking the 14th... isn't this a bit of double-speak from the SCOTUS? Even a broad reading of Judge Walker's injunction wouldn't apply it to other states. The decision was specific to Prop 8. Other courts might well cite it as persuasive authority, but it wouldn't be binding authority.
     
    #79 Dan82, Jun 26, 2013
  20. Dan82

    Dan82
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    The Supreme Court ended Proposition 8. Here’s what that means.




    ---------- Post added 26th Jun 2013 at 11:10 AM ----------

    LIVE VIDEO: Supreme Court strikes down Calif. Prop 8, DOMA | Politics - KSBW Home




    ---------- Post added 26th Jun 2013 at 11:12 AM ----------

    Comment From Seth
    Will any courts have to recognize Judge Walker's Prop. 8 ruling as constitutional precedent? From Kevin: District court decisions never have binding force on other courts -- they just have the power to persuade.
     
    #80 Dan82, Jun 26, 2013
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 6